History and the Way Forward

Homes dynamited, children orphaned, women widowed and half-widowed, eyes blinded, legs amputated,
basic facilities destroyed, human rights violated, political rights trampled on, legal rights usurped; this is the
valley of Kashmir the present state of which is exposing the reality of the United Nations Charter. It lays
bare the liberal values of Western democracies, the jurisdiction of international court of arbitration, the
powers of Amnesty International and lofty slogans of numerous global institutions. Kashmir is the world’s
bloodiest dispute that has claimed the lives of at least 96,000 people since January 1989. Besides, more
than 20,000 women have been rendered widows in this prolonged conflict while 215,000 children have
been orphaned owing to worst form of India’s state terrorism. Although the decades-old neglect,
discrimination and suppression of Kashmiri identity coupled with the power-centric approach of successive
regimes in India gave birth to an armed resistance, or more rightly the freedom movement, in 1989, the
post-Burhan Wani era can particularly be cited as the most transformative phase in this stretched struggle
of the Kashmiris who only demand that their right to self-determination be accepted and accorded to them.
Tech-savvy youth, mostly college and university students, has made the freedom struggle highly visible in
international media. Images of stone-pelting girls have further attracted the attention of the international
community to the festering wound of Kashmir. This renewed focus warrants discussion on the possible
alternatives to resolve this issue. In this regard, a brief overview of the historical developments would help
better understand this conflict.
The awful story began with the infamous ‘sell’ of Kashmir by the British Raj to Maharaja Gulab Singh, the
Dogra ruler of Jammu, Ladakh and Baltistan, under the Treaty of Amritsar (1846). Under the said Treaty,
the Dogra ruler had to pay 75 lakhs (7.5 million) Nanak Shahi rupees for the whole territory of Kashmir. It
is widely believed that Maharaja was awarded for the services he rendered for the British East India
Company in its Afghan expeditions and for the critical role he played in protecting the British interests in
Punjab. This notorious sell against the wishes of the inhabitants of Kashmir sowed the seeds of discontent,
disaffection and frustration among the Muslims of the region, and they furiously resisted this and rose for
their political, legal, religious and economic rights. Dogra rulers responded with coercion, disproportionate
use of force, imprisonment and capital punishments to thousands of Muslims. The very first organized
political movement in Kashmir started in 1932 under the leadership of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah when
he established a political party “Muslim Conference” which was later renamed as National Conference in
1939 under the influence of Jawaharlal Nehru. The National Conference split in 1942, with Ghulam Abbas
forming his own faction under the name Muslim Conference. As names reflect, Sheikh Abdullah-led
National Conference projected itself as a secular party that was representative of all religious communities
of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and supported Kashmir’s accession to India whereas Ghulam Abbas-led
Muslim Conference supported the accession of princely state to Pakistan and led the movement for Azad
Kashmir.
Then came the tumultuous years of 1947 and 1948! The partition; the unjust demarcation of boundary line
in the form of Radcliffe Award that also provided India with a land route to Kashmir, i.e. Gurdaspur district;
signing of a standstill agreement with Pakistan by Maharaja Hari Singh on August 12, 1947; the Poonch
Rebellion by Muslims for annexation with Pakistan; successful war of liberation by people of Gilgit-Baltistan
and its accession to Pakistan in November 1947; the armed intervention in Kashmir by the tribesmen – with
the support of Pakistan army; the signing of the controversial, so-called Instrument of Accession with India
by Maharaja; UN-sponsored ceasefire; and UN Security Council’s resolutions (39 & 47) pledging a
plebiscite to determine the public opinion for deciding the future political status of Kashmir, these incidents
are well-known as a part of history, therefore, they do not need any further discussion. As far as Indian
pledge of holding plebiscite in Kashmir is concerned, the Indian government blatantly reneged on this
promise when the country’s parliament passed a bill in 1965 whereby Kashmir was declared a province
and an integral part of the Indian Union.

The Kashmir challenge

The dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 sent shockwaves in Indian-Occupied Kashmir (IOK) as well. The
National Conference, which had been supporting the enforcement of UNSC resolutions as the only way
forward in resolving the Kashmir dispute, signed Indira-Sheikh Accord in 1975 whereby it dropped the
demand for the right of self-determination in exchange for a special status for Kashmir which was granted
with the insertion of irrevocable Article 370 in the Indian constitution. With this accord, the Kashmiris’
peaceful struggle for self-determination effectively came to an end. Later, the sheer disaffection and
frustration arising out of the Accord, the availability of arms, overwhelmingly dominating role of the Indian
Union, continuous denial of right of self-determination to Kashmiris and the rigged election in 1989 further
aggravated ethno-religious sentiments creating thereby an enabling environment for a full-blown armed
resist once that has refused to die till date, despite huge deployment of Indian army personnel – 700,000
armed officials – giving it extremely high 70:1200, a record in Guinness Book of World Record.
After a cursory look at the past, it seems apposite that we analyze the respective stances of Pakistan and
India so as to suggest pragmatic alternatives for sorting the issue out. India claims sovereignty over all
parts of J&K on the basis of the legality and validity of the so-called Instrument of Accession. It asserts that
it had been ratified by the Constituent Assembly and the constitution of IOK does also validate the
accession. It further argues that passing of the UNSC resolutions 39 and 47 under non-binding Chapter 6
of the UN Charter, as well as the demographic and geographic changes in the region have diluted their
relevance to resolving the issue.
Another argument that India puts forward is a provision in the Simla Accord wherein both countries agreed
to resolve the Kashmir dispute bilaterally. It, therefore, asseverates that any foreign intervention – by the
UN or any third country – violates the Simla Accord. Moreover, the UN’s decision to remove Kashmir from
its unresolved agenda in 2010 further augmented the Indian stance. Based upon these arguments, India
considers the accession of Kashmir as final and irrevocable.
Pakistan, however, challenges the validity and legality of the Instrument of Accession and cites the
circumstances under which it was signed as a primary reason. Pakistan not only rejects the Indian claim as
fraudulent, but also declares the whole episode of accession as a conspiracy hatched by India, Maharaja
and Lord Mountbatten. Pakistan argues that the Instrument was signed only to have a provisional
arrangement and the condition of plebiscite to determine the popular will was part of the agreement. Since
Maharaja had also signed the Standstill Agreement with Pakistan, his act of calling Indian Army for help
was irrational and uncalled for, let alone being illegal or unconstitutional. Moreover, when Maharaja decided
to accede to India (as per the Indian claim), he had lost a major part of his state and, hence, lost authority
to decide the future of the lost territories. Besides legal arguments, Pakistan highlights also the continuous
violation of human rights in Kashmir under the draconian laws like Armed Forces Special Powers Act and
Public Safety Act that empower security forces to detain, blind and even kill the locals with impunity. In this
regard, the first-ever UN Human Rights Commission Report on Kashmir that called for the formulation of
UN Commission for Inquiry to investigate the ongoing violation of human rights in IOK clearly vindicates
Pakistan’s stance. Pakistan also highlights the extremely low turnout in elections – only 4.2 percent in the
most recent Local Bodies Election (October 2018) – to prove its case that the people of Kashmir should be
given internationally recognized right of self-determination rather than a sham internal autonomy. Based
upon these legalistic arguments and documented evidences of human rights violations, Pakistan considers
Kashmir as the unfinished agenda of partition that needs immediate intervention of international community.
In view of the above-discussed stances maintained by India and Pakistan, it is vividly clear that the
annexation of Kashmir with either Pakistan or India seems an implausible idea in the near future. Given the
unabated, state-led Indian terrorism and the looming escalation of the skirmishes along the LoC into full-
blown nuclear war, it is of pressing urgency to seek alternative solutions that create a win-win situation for
all parties involved in the conflict. In this regard, the following few suggestions need thorough discussion.

Maintaining status quo: It implies continuing with the administration of a major part of Kashmir, Jammu
and Ladakh by India and the administration of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Biltistan by Pakistan. Though India
claims the whole of Kashmir, it has shown its willingness to turn the de-facto Line of Control into a de-jure
international border. This proposal has the backing of UK and USA. Pakistan vehemently opposes this
option as it would be tantamount to its surrender before India and ignoring the aspirations of the people of
Kashmir who have been fighting against India since partition.

Establishment of an independent J&K: This option is also put forward as a possible alternative solution.
This too, has several drawbacks as a financially weak, militarily vulnerable, socially fragmented and
politically and administratively inexperienced state of Jammu and Kashmir will have to spend massively to
defend itself against nuclear armed Pakistan and India and it would drain its resources massively.
Moreover, the independence of J&K would necessitate the surrender of Pakistan-administered and Indian-
occupied territories to the nascent state and given the strategic assets both states have in these areas, it
is next to impossible that this would ever happen. The fear of balkanization of India and consequent regional
instability would also bar international community to back this option.
Trifurcation: Another option is trifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Under this proposed
arrangement, Jammu, having 66 percent Hindu and 30 percent Muslim population, and Buddhist Ladakh
would be given to India and Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) would continue to be
administrated by Pakistan. This scenario apparently seems most feasible as every party involved would get
some share of the pie and the continuously suffering people of Kashmir would get liberation from India.
Though Pakistan is least expected to object to this proposal, the most likely resistance would come from
Hindu hardliners and hawks in Indian governments who would resist any move that would deprive India of
the strategically important territory. With approximately 1800 square miles landmass, independent Kashmir
would be the smallest state of South Asia that would have to exploit its potential in tourism, handicraft and
agriculture to sustain itself economically. This proposal is considered by many the best alternative. But, it
does require some tweaking to be acceptable to all the stakeholders.

Chenab Formula: It is also a serious suggestion to resolve the Kashmir dispute. This formula discusses
the division of Jammu & Kashmir along the river Chenab. This would divide the region into religiously-
distinguished areas where India would get Hindu-majority areas and Pakistan would get Muslim-majority
areas. This arrangement would require voluntary surrender of major portion of Indian-occupied Kashmir
and one cannot find any incentive which would compel India to contemplate to take such action.
In 2006, the then President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharaf, came with some historically
unprecedented suggestions to settle the issue. These suggestions, also known as Musharraf’s four-point
formula, included the status quo of LoC with free movement of people and ideas on both sides of the border
(soft borders); the self-government or autonomy in both sides of Kashmir but not independence; the phased
demilitarization of the region; and a joint supervisory mechanism with representation of Pakistan, India and
Kashmiri leadership to implement these steps smoothly. Though this proposal met with refusal from India
and acceptance from Hurriyet leadership, Pakistan had shown considerable flexibility in its stance by not
inviting UN intervention, seeking self-government rather than self-determination, and minimizing its control
over Azad Kashmir. In this regard, it is also worth-mentioning that a noted Indian journalist Barkha Dutt has
disclosed in a tweet that PM Imran Khan has hinted at adopting the Musharraf formula to resolve the
Kashmir dispute, provided that India responds favourably to the peace initiatives taken by PTI-led
government.
Ever since the partition, Kashmir has been the bone of contention between Pakistan and India and hitherto
an insurmountable impediment to benefitting from the huge trade and economic potential that can be
exploited through peaceful coexistence. Now that the PTI-led government seems willing to make peace
and exploit the bilateral trade potential, it is high time the Indian government abandoned its myopic and
vote-bank-driven foreign policy so as to move forward to avail this golden opportunity to resolve this long-
standing issue, once for all, so that our future generations may taste the fruits of prosperity and
development.